David Drew: W hat analysis his Department has undertaken in advance of setting out its preferred options for the England rural development programme 2007 to 2013; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Turner: May I express my deep condolences to Carroll and sympathy to Eric's family and friends, wherever they are?
	The Minister's Department shares membership with the Department of Trade and Industry and Post Office Ltd of a tripartite committee on the development of the rural post office network. Does he agree that many other Government Departments are sadly undermining the future of the post office network by, for example, removing the TV licence, taking benefit payments out of the network and threatening the future of the Post Office card account, and are thus driving people on to the roads to go out of their villages and into towns to access essential services? I know that £450 million is being—

Barry Gardiner: The Government recognise that access to essential services through the post office network is critical for the countryside and people living in rural areas. However, one must recognise that the network is not being used as it once was by people in both urban and rural areas. Customers have voted with their feet. The loss to the network started long before 1993, the changes regarding the Post Office card account and the direct payment of benefits. If the Government are to act responsibly, they must ensure that they get the maximum benefit to people through services. However, they must examine new ways of delivering those services, such as through the internet, as the customer demands that we should. We need to meet customers' needs in the way in which they want us to.

Graham Allen: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the recent work done at Manchester university that shows that, if international pollution from sources such as aviation and shipping is included in the calculation of emissions, the UK has made no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990. Will he commit to working with his European partners to establish an EU framework to reduce the emissions involved in international pollution? Does not that problem underline the fact that, although all of us must do what we can as individuals to combat environmental pollution, ultimately the answer lies at international level and in global agreements?

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware that the aviation industry is widely reported to support the establishment of an emissions trading scheme within the EU, but he will also know that there is no current prospect of replacing aviation kerosene with a low or zero-carbon fuel. There is therefore a danger that, under an emissions trading scheme, the aviation industry will simply purchase credits from other sectors that have succeeded in making cuts, without doing so itself. Does he agree that much greater pressure must be brought to bear to boost scientific research into aviation fuels and engines, so that the industry itself can contribute to significant cuts in the future?

Ian Pearson: I add my condolences to those expressed by the hon. Gentleman with respect to Eric Forth, who was widely respected in the House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to say something about that shortly.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that we want to see aviation fuel as part of an emissions trading scheme. We need to take action on aviation fuel. That is why, through the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, we are pushing as the United Kingdom to ensure that international action is taken. International industries need international solutions. That is why it is so important that we take this action. It is right that aviation fuel represents about only 5 per cent. of UK emissions, but the use of it is planned to increase. That is why we need to take urgent action. We need to commit ourselves internationally.

David Miliband: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to associate the entire ministerial team at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the shock and dismay expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the untimely death of Eric Forth. He was utterly committed, not just to his constituency but to the House of Commons, and he was an important example to us all.
	Officials effectively applied for an extension for the payment deadline to the European Commission in April, but I am relieved to report to the House that, according to the latest figures, 87 per cent. of payments have now been disbursed to 76 per cent. of claimants. Four DEFRA Officials, including chief executive Mark Addison, have been temporarily loaned to the Rural Payments Agency for different periods to strengthen the agency's capacity to deal with the current problems associated with the single payment scheme.

David Miliband: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I shall be attending my first Agriculture Council on Monday—a treat reserved for the lucky few. I gather that it is a process designed to convince those of us of strong pro-European credentials that we could not be more right, and that the European Union is the most perfect organisation to deal with. I will meet the Commissioner on Monday. It is important that we give out a message from our Department that we are proud of the work of British farmers, that the British food that they produce is top quality, and that we are determined to work with them to support the environment in which they live and to ensure not only that the farming payments are made, but that the diversification that they have led over the past few years continues. For me, farmers are at the front line of the fight against climate change and we must ensure that they are supported in their activities.

James Paice: I thank the Secretary of State for kind remarks about Eric Forth. Those of us who served with him in government understood his ability in that context and as a parliamentarian. I welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibility. He takes over at a time when the distrust of Government by farmers is probably at its lowest ebb since 1947— [Interruption.] I am delighted that hon. Members take such pleasure in the distrust of Government by farmers. The partial payments are welcome, though long overdue, and the Minister has just said that the 5,000-odd complex cases have been reduced to 3,700, which I am glad to hear, but those—they are all large farmers—have received nothing. Also, as the Secretary of State will know, by last Monday farmers were required to claim this year's for payment on their entitlements, even though the vast majority have not had their entitlements validated, so their difficulty in filling in an accurate form is obvious. As he has asked for the extension to the payment window, why does he not also ask for an extension to this year's claim date, as Poland has already done, so that those claims can be based on validated entitlements, otherwise he will face thousands of individual disputes next year about why claims have been incorrectly submitted, based on false evidence and false information from the Rural Payments Agency?

David Miliband: I think that people way above my pay grade are putting the right sort of discussions on the table with the American Government. Our responsibility is to ensure that our contribution to the IPCC report, which gains its authority from the fact that it represents an international consensus on climate change, continues to establish an intellectual basis for the changes that we need to make. I have not read the report myself, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all the indications that I have had from the IPCC suggest that the degree of alarm that we should feel about climate change is well justified.

David Miliband: I am happy to respond to the challenge. I will speak up as necessary, both inside and outside Government. If we can forge a consensus and if the new model Conservative party wants to see the light, I welcome them to the consensus table.

Ian Pearson: First, let us be clear about the Prime Minister's comments. He was referring to the fact that, if present policy remains unchanged, we shall become heavily dependent on imported gas, moving from being 80 to 90 per cent. self-reliant to being 80 to 90 per cent. dependent. He said that that meant that the replacement of nuclear power stations, along with a big push towards renewables and a step change in energy efficiency, engaging businesses and consumers, were all back on the agenda. The energy review is looking at all those issues, and it will come up with a balanced result. Biomass can be part of the overall picture. Sir Ben Gill's report says that it has the potential to provide 6 per cent. of our energy needs by 2020, and that is very much to be welcomed. The figure is only 1 per cent. at the moment, so we have a long way to go if we are to achieve that, but important developments are taking place with biomass and biofuels that give us optimism for the future.

Ian Pearson: I know that the situation is different in Northern Ireland, and that a lot of work has been done there on the production of short rotation coppice willow, for example. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that John Gilliland, a valued member of the Sustainable Development Commission, has pioneered this work on his farm in Derry. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that funding is available in Northern Ireland, as it is in England, Wales and Scotland, and it is right that the Government should give this new technology every encouragement. I am sure that, as biomass becomes more established, the market for it will grow and welcome improvements in cost-efficiency will help the renewable energy market to prosper.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and to hear that his Department is taking action to draw to the attention of the OFT and Competition Commission the many complaints that farmers have made about the way in which supermarkets deal with their suppliers. Will he also make clear in his representations the importance that Members of the House attach to the role of small shops in rural communities and in larger centres such as Inverness where the increasing dominance of supermarkets is having such a dramatic impact? If the Competition Commission can take action to protect and enhance the position of consumers, farmers and small shops, it will do a great deal to boost the sustainability of rural communities.

Elfyn Llwyd: I associate myself fully with the remarks made about the late Eric Forth. He was truly formidable in the House, and a great parliamentarian. I am sure that he will be missed throughout the House.
	I also associate myself with those who have welcomed the forthcoming report. Will the OFT's remit include thinking again about whether supermarkets should benefit from advantageous commercial rates? Currently they are favoured in comparison with those in the smaller sector in terms of the rate that they pay per sq ft.

Jack Straw: Before announcing the business for the week ahead, I wish to express my sorrow at the sudden death of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Conservative party has lost one of its stars and this House has lost a great parliamentarian. He brightened this place with his ties, his waistcoats and his love of country and western music, but above all with his personality. Eric served this Parliament with great distinction in many capacities, including on Committees, on the Speaker's Panel, in the Chamber and holding court in the Tea Room, offering advice to all comers, including myself—and very sage advice it was. But the House will recall particularly with great warmth Eric's weekly encounters with the late Robin Cook, when Robin was Leader of the House and Eric was the shadow Leader of the House. Each sharpened his wit on the other, to the great entertainment and elucidation of the rest of us. Our sympathies and prayers go to Eric's wife, Carroll, his three children, his friends and all his constituents.
	The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 22 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
	Tuesday 23 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.
	Wednesday 24 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.
	Thursday 25 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week after the Whitsun recess will include:
	Monday 5 June—Second Reading of the NHS Redress Bill. [ Lords].

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the coming week and I echo the sentiments he expressed about my late right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It was with deep shock and sadness that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends learned this morning of Eric's untimely death. Eric was a former shadow Leader of the House and his skirmishes each week with the late Robin Cook became legendary. Eric was above all a great parliamentarian, who loved this place and all it stood for. Never a man to pull his punches and not always beloved of the Whips or, dare I say it, Front Benchers, he was a great asset to this House. More than that, many in this House across all parties have lost not only a great colleague, but a friend. The life of this House will be the lesser for his passing. It was a mark of the man and his personality, to which the Leader of the House alluded, that the staff of the Tea Room expressed their tremendous sadness this morning, too. He had been a friend to them, not just to Members of Parliament. We have lost a great parliamentarian and we all mourn his loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Carroll, and his family, friends and constituents.
	I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the importance of a good conclusion to the Doha round of world trade talks, not only for this country, but for the whole developing world. May we have a debate on world trade so that we can explore the Government's position and ensure that they are putting sufficient pressure for the right conclusion of this round of trade talks on the European Trade Commissioner?
	This week, it has been announced that 573 jobs will be lost at NHS Direct, in addition to the thousands of jobs being lost in hospitals across the country. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Heath on the future of NHS Direct?
	However, that is not the only part of the NHS that is suffering financial problems. For example, the Thames Valley strategic health authority already gets 21 per cent. less funding than the average, and it has admitted that that has resulted in fewer operations and less patient care. In a presentation to the board last week, the SHA's chief executive revealed that introducing a national standard tariff across the NHS would mean that it would cost Thames Valley PCTs £70 million extra a year to provide the same services—there would be no gain in activity or in the services provided. That is just one example, so it is little wonder that people ask where all the money has gone. Therefore, may we also have a debate on the future funding of NHS trusts and the impact of the standard tariff?
	That is the NHS that the Health Secretary said had had its best year ever—where on earth has she been? But that is not the only area where the Government are in denial. The head of the civil service has said of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's work on asylum that it has "been performing particularly well", and the Prime Minster wrote to the incoming Home Secretary advising him to "continue and accelerate" the success of the Government's immigration and asylum policies.
	That is the same Home Office where only 16 per cent. of officials have confidence in senior management. The director of enforcement and renewals at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was asked by the Home Affairs Committee how many people were in Britain illegally. He said:
	"I haven't the faintest idea".
	When asked how many people had been removed when all their appeal processes had been exhausted, he said:
	"We don't track individual cases".
	Therefore, can we have a debate on the chaos in the Government's prisons and immigration polices?
	Perhaps that is why, in a recent speech, the Prime Minister revealed that he was asking the Chancellor to examine how the Treasury could be involved in ensuring the protection and security of the public. When asked if that meant that the Home Secretary would have to refer to the Chancellor before making any decisions, the Downing street spokesman said:
	"No. The Home Secretary and the Chancellor will have a normal relationship".
	Presumably that will be in contrast to the relationship between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Up until now, the Chancellor has been the roadblock to reform, so can we have a debate in his future role in public sector reform?
	Finally, in an article in the  Eastern Daily Press, the sacked former Home Secretary said of the recent reshuffle:
	"I thought the point was to give a clear sense of redirection for the Government but, in the end, it hasn't worked out like that."
	So the former Home Secretary says that the Government lack direction, the Health Secretary is in denial, and the Home Office is in meltdown—no wonder that this is a Government in paralysis.

Jack Straw: I shall deal in turn with the points raised by the right hon. Lady. We are doing a great deal to apply pressure where that is required, as I can confirm from my five years as Foreign Secretary. We took the lead in the EU in pushing for an end to unacceptably high and restrictive subsidies to farmers across Europe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary used to be Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and was in the lead negotiating the deal on the future of the common agricultural policy.
	In addition, we are also pushing the US and other key partners in the Doha round, and especially the much larger states from the non-aligned movement, such as India and Brazil. Those states must also make some movement, and especially in respect of non-agricultural market access. I assure the shadow Leader of the House that there will be an opportunity to debate these matters in the regular six-monthly debate due to take place just before the European Council in mid-June. That will be a full day's debate, and I hope that she and the rest of the House will take that opportunity to discuss the matters that she has raised and other key foreign policy issues coming up before the Council, such as Iraq, Iran and the funding of Hamas.
	The right hon. Lady asks about the health service. She is not correct in claiming that thousands of people will lose their jobs under changes in NHS funding. She asks where the money has gone. It has gone, first, on dramatic increases in the number of clinical staff in the health service. Overall, there has been an increase of 85,000 in the total number of nurses in the health service, including an increase of nearly 3,000 in the health area covering her constituency.
	Secondly, the money has gone on ensuring that nurses and other clinical staff are better paid. The number of nurses has increased by well over a quarter since 1997 and, alongside that, the pay of nurses, in real terms after inflation, has also increased by over a quarter.
	Thirdly, the money has gone on new hospital buildings, to an astonishing degree, including in my constituency and in most constituencies in the country. Fourthly, it has gone on equipment. That is why there are difficulties with the health service—there always will be—but overall, on the question of whether the health service is doing the job for which the taxpayer is paying: yes it is, which is why levels of patient satisfaction are higher and why overall, on any measure, patients are receiving better care faster, and mortality and morbidity rates all show improvement.
	The right hon. Lady asks about asylum and immigration. Asylum numbers are significantly lower than when we came into office in 1997. I have every reason to remember the catastrophic record of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who had ordered a computer system, failed to finance it properly and, at a time when numbers of asylum seekers were rising, slashed by 1,200 the number of staff in the immigration and nationality department dealing with asylum seekers. On top of that, he had declared an amnesty in which 30,000 of those people were allowed to stay in the country without further proper inquiry.
	Numbers are now down, and we have passed the tipping point where the numbers leaving the country are higher than the numbers applying to stay. We have reduced the time taken to process applications from20 months to about two months.
	On the number of illegal asylum seekers, the Prime Minister reminded the House yesterday of the following:
	"'There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative.'"—[ Official Report, 17 May 2006; Vol. 446,c. 991.]
	That is what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said in 1995. There are slightly better estimates these days, following work by Professor Salt for the research and information directorate of the Home Office, who estimated that the total number of people who are wholly illegal was between 310,000 and 500,000. Those are not asylum seekers; we know how many asylum seekers there are.
	I am glad to see the shadow Home Secretary sitting next to the right hon. Lady. Whatever other promises he makes at the next election about how life will be so much better when he becomes Home Secretary—that every prisoner will become compliant, every criminal will stop committing crime and, probably much easier to achieve, that there will be no illegal immigrants because they will be scared off by the disaster of the Conservative Government—I strongly advise him not to claim that he will be able to produce an accurate estimate of the total number of illegal immigrants. That would be very unwise, as he knows. Why? Because people who are wholly illegally in this country, as in every other country, have escaped immigration control and thus, by definition, do not appear on any database. No country in the world has accurate figures for wholly illegal immigration: not the United States and not the country held up as having the greatest and most efficient system of law and order in Europe—if not the highest respect for human rights—namely, France. The French have hundreds of thousands of people who are "sans papiers." They do not know the numbers and they do not take much interest in them.

David Heath: From these Benches, may we join the tributes to Eric Forth? Business questions was his natural stage, and one on which he always excelled. Even at his most provocative, he was never less than entertaining and never less than perceptive. No one was ever in any doubt what Eric Forth thought about anything, and behind the undoubted style, there was real substance. He was an ornament to the House, and he will be sorely missed.
	May we have an urgent debate on nuclear power in this country? It is clearly no good waiting for the results of the energy review, because the Prime Minister has transparently decided to pre-empt the results of that review. Therefore, given the reservations that have been expressed, quite openly, by a former Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the fact that the Treasury has said that the costs are likely to be eye-wateringly large, is it not time that the whole House had an opportunity to debate the matter?
	If and when orders are introduced for the regionalisation of police forces—given the difficulties that have been experienced over recent days in Wales, that may not happen—can they be brought before the whole House, so that all hon. Members have the opportunity to raise the issues that are relevant to our constituencies?
	It was two weeks ago, I think, that the Government was reshuffled, but still no list of ministerial responsibilities is available. Can the Leader of the House sort that out? We apparently now know what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing, but it would be nice to see which Ministers feel that they have which responsibilities, so that we can perhaps hold them to account rather better than we would otherwise.
	Lastly, may we have a debate on the Human Rights Act 1998? Two weeks ago, the problem was the then Home Secretary; now it seems that everything is down to the exercise of the Human Rights Act. Frankly, the Prime Minister has been saying some very silly things about that Act over recent weeks. Given that some of us believe that the finest achievement of the Leader of the House, when he was Home Secretary, was to introduce the Human Rights Act, may we have a debate to defend the reputation of that Act and of the right hon. Gentleman?

Chris Mullin: Might we find time to debate the extent to which the tabloid virus is beginning to infect BBC television news? Has the Leader of the House noticed that newscasters increasingly no longer read news to camera, but walk around the studio like a couple of ham actors emoting? I think that it is called news with attitude. Did he notice that last night's 6 o'clock television news was cynically edited to delete the fact that the Prime Minister, inhis reply to the right hon. Member for Witney(Mr. Cameron), quoted the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? That had to be reinstated—no doubt after complaints—in the 10 o'clock news bulletin. Does he agree that if the BBC cannot do better than that, it is going to have difficult justifying its licence fee?

John Horam: As Eric Forth's neighbouring MP in Bromley, may I just say a few words in addition to the very fine tributes by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House? As they have said, he will be mainly remembered as a stout defender of the role of the House of Commons and a great House of Commons man. Not everyone in the House may realise, as I did as his neighbour, that, in many ways, he was an old softie at heart. The comments made by the shadow Leader of the House about the reaction in the Tea Room re-enforced that. He was a very good neighbour to me and when I faced some difficulty in the last general election, he was the first to come and help out. He was there early in the morning; no nonsense, getting on with it and saying, "I will deliver anything you want." The House may like to know that, in Bromley, he was regarded with great affection, as well as great respect, for an outstanding independence of spirit. He will be greatly missed.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend has put the position of the NHS in Leicester in context. There has been a significant improvement in funding in Leicestershire. The number of nurses is up 1,600 in the health authority area, there are nearly 700 more doctors, including 250 more consultants, and a lot of capital investment. I cannot promise him a debate on the Floor of the House, but there are many opportunities to raise the matter on the Adjournment, including in Westminster Hall and I hope that he will take them. As his next-door neighbour, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is fully aware of the issue; indeed, I know that she is.

Jack Straw: I will indeed use my good offices in that respect to see what can be done to ensure that there is a venue for the Grand Committee in Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for, as I understand it, attending the recent British-Irish parliamentary union. I accept the point that he makes and I will pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

David Howarth: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the subject of nuclear power, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? The need for an urgent debate on the subject was illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman's answer, in which he managed to ignore microgeneration and energy efficiency measures, both of which would be interfered with by a decision to go nuclear. Will he comment on the view that seems to be coming from Downing street that that vastly important and potentially dangerous change in energy policy might be achieved without primary legislation? Will he ensure, not only that there is a full debate in the House on the change, but that the House has an opportunity to vote on it?

Nicholas Soames: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his handsome and generous tribute to my right hon. Friend, the late Eric Forth? As others have said, the important thing about Eric Forth is that he was deadly serious about defending the rights and freedoms that over the generations this House has hard won from over-mighty Executives, and he believed, rightly, that we should do that better. We shall genuinely miss him.
	The Leader of the House will, I am sure, have heard that I am to chair a big public meeting in East Grinstead tomorrow night, as part of the formal consultation on the Government's wicked plan to impose excess further housing in the south-east of England. Does he agree that, by any stretch of the imagination, the scale of the developments is clearly in breach of the Government's own benchmark for sustainability? Given the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) yesterday in his urgent question on the water supply, and given the inadequacy of the roads and railways and the fact that public services in the area are extremely overstretched, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we in this House have a chance to debate the infrastructure's inability to keep up with the Government's plans for increased house building in the south of England, particularly in Mid-Sussex?

Jack Straw: I know of the close friendship between the hon. Gentleman and Eric Forth. Both could often be found in the Tea Room talking about over-mighty Governments, particularly during the period of the Major Government.  [ Laughter. ]
	The hon. Gentleman, as a former Chairman of the Procedure Committee and a member of the Modernisation Committee, will know that there are many opportunities to debate that subject. He will also know that, in a public session of the Modernisation Committee yesterday, we received evidence from three academics, one of whom made the point that the accountability of Ministers to Parliament had been strengthened significantly in the past 50 years, not least through the introduction 25 years ago of the Select Committee process. I am strongly in favour of improving the accountability, and the perception of accountability, of Ministers, but we must not believe that the position has worsened in the past 50 years when, in fact, it has got significantly better.

Jack Straw: There are plenty of occasions to debate that issue, but if the Opposition feel really exercised about it, they have a number of Opposition days coming up, which I am sure that they will put to good use.  [ Interruption. ] I see the Opposition Chief Whip confirm that. I am always happy to suggest subjects to the Opposition for their debating time.
	I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality gave that time scale because of the time that it will take to introduce the e-borders arrangements, so that we have accurate data on the numbers going in and coming out of the country.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman tells his constituents that in 1996, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe(Mr. Howard), decided to abandon disembarkation controls in Dover and other ports, which covered about 40 per cent. of those leaving the country. He also got rid of all the staff and the budget for them. When I became Home Secretary, it was clear that there was no point in maintaining embarkation controls in respect of the other 60 per cent. because people who wanted to leave illegally would go through the other ports. The system that the Conservatives had maintained meant that even when disembarkation cards were taken off people, they were put in a room and nothing was done with them.
	We must change the system, and that is what the Government are seeking to do. I wish that there had been slightly more help from the Opposition in respect of part of these arrangements, especially on identity cards.

Pete Wishart: I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the glowing tributes to Eric Forth. When showing new Members round the House, I would always point out Eric Forth, and the description "colourful character" would always feature.
	I do not know whether the Leader of the House saw the programme on the BBC over the weekend that showed that 52 per cent. of the British public believe that a Scottish Members should no longer be able to become Prime Minister. I am certainly sure that it was not missed by No. 11. Does not this show that the public are way ahead of the House and the Government in their thinking about the role of Scottish Members? Should we not have a proper, grown-up debate about the role of us Scots MPs so that we get up to speed with the public on this issue?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman has a particular view; he would like to see Scotland separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not the view taken by the vast majority of people in Scotland, nor is it the view taken by the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom. We should celebrate our Britishness. A Prime Minister is the Prime Minister for the entire United Kingdom—that is Great Britain, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. It seems to me that where he or she happens to come from is entirely irrelevant.

Christopher Fraser: May I also associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to Eric Forth. He was a politician who always made himself available to new Members to give them, as he would put it, good advice.
	You have probably read, as I have, Mr. Speaker, the interview of the Leader of the House in  The Times of two days ago. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations about petitions receiving a certain amount of action rather than just a response. Will he extend that principle to popular early-day motions, which currently receive no Government response or debate in the House?

Jack Straw: The petitions proposal is not an original proposal from me; it has been around for a while. I understand that the Scottish Parliament has a good system in place for dealing with petitions that are signed by a significant number of Members. It was my instinct to raise the matter before the Modernisation Committee, and, subject to what colleagues on that Committee and other Members believe to be right, to ensure that we take more seriously petitions that are often painstakingly drawn up, with the support of many constituents and other people throughout the country. I think that that is straightforward.
	An inquiry is taking place into the future of early-day motions. That is a matter for the House and certainly not one for the Government. It is a tricky issue because they are used for serious national issues, serious constituency issues and trivial issues such as the success or failure of Burnley football club.

Nicholas Winterton: As the House knows, the Senior Salaries Review Body has made some critical recommendations on Members' pay, and it has established comparators in both the public and the private sector. Does the Leader of the House accept that Members' pay is 20 per cent. behind the comparators to which it has been linked by the SSRB? Is that fair in the short, medium or long term for hon. Members? Will it encourage good, competent, able, intelligent people to put their names forward as Members of Parliament?

Jack Straw: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I shall deal with the wider review of Members' pay that will take place next year. As comparable pay in the private sector has risen much faster than pay for senior civil servants, they too are out of kilter with the comparators, so I accept the strength of that argument.
	In its review next year the SSRB must take account of the extent to which pay levels act as a disincentive, deterring good people in all walks of life from serving in the House. It is important that Members of Parliament be paid properly, and—as members of all parties aspire to hold office—that should include Ministers. At the same time, however, I am struck by the high calibre of members of all parties who entered the House in 2001 and 2005, notwithstanding the pay, and the cynical press that Members of Parliament generally receive. However, if pay does not keep pace with the comparators, particularly as the pressure on Members of Parliament to serve full-time is much greater than it was when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and I came to the House almost three decades ago—

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have received a note saying that the review was to be commissioned this year, and will report next year. I have rather fewer complaints about my pay because, as I am a member of the Cabinet, it is little more than the hon. Gentleman's. I hope that the review will look at the issue of whether there should be an age and experience-related band, as it is perfectly possible to construct a series of steps—

David Heath: I did not take it, but that is neither here nor there. I do not want to parade that as an example of virtue—it was simply the way that I personally felt about the issue.
	We must also, however, be fair to Members of Parliament. We have to reflect the comparators that are set down and ensure that Members' salaries are commensurate with the responsibilities that they take on. It worries me when Members' pay falls way behind those comparators. I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the job of a Member of Parliament should be to represent people in this place, not to go off and do some other job down the road. It always surprises, and sometimes shocks, me when somebody leaves high office, or even shadow responsibilities, and the first thing that the newspapers say is, "What job is he going to do now?" The answer is the job of a Member of Parliament, which is still their prime responsibility. It worries me that so many Members feel the need to top up their salaries in all sorts of ways. I cannot believe that that is to the advantage of their constituents. Of course, every individual has to take a view for themselves.
	The Leader of the House cited the quality of the recent intake of Members. I agree. I think that we had an extraordinarily talented intake on both sides of the House this time.

David Heath: That is by far the simplest way of dealing with it, and it takes the matter out of the political argument, which is as it should be. I would hope that it takes an objective and independent view, not one clouded by the misconceptions of bundling up all our office expenses—for example, staff and computers—into our salary and saying that they are perks for the individual concerned. All those factors are removed from the equation and we have an objective view.
	I entirely support the contention of the Leader of the House in the first motion. Given that the Government have determined that civil service pay should be staged, it would be wrong of us to seek an advantageous position, and we should accept that recommendation.
	That brings me on to the payment of the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill. I have genuine problems with that. I hasten to add thatthat has nothing to do with either the person orthe qualities of the hon. Member for Mansfield(Mr. Meale), and everything to do with the apparent lack of discipline and control over the process—a process that I generally welcome. Those who chair Select Committees of the House undertake a very substantial job and generally do so with a great deal of assiduity and sheer hard work. I can readily accept that there should be a career structure within the House and that it should be rewarded, but I have always been reluctant for it to be greatly expanded. I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead that we are rapidly approaching the situation whereby the only people who will not be paid extra are those who do a great deal of the work of the House by speaking from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches on each and every Bill and attending Standing Committees to speak as required, and do so without any extra emolument at all. I hasten to add that I am not seeking that extra emolument, but merely pointing out that it is a rather perverse situation.
	We now have payments for the Chairmen on the Chairmen's Panel who chair our Standing Committees. Again, I do not argue with that. It is a gradated structure. However, naming a specific temporary Committee sets an unhelpful precedent. The motion makes no provision—although it is clearly implied—that the payment should cease at the point at which the Select Committee reports. However, I have a more substantial objection. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mansfield is a member of the Chairmen's Panel—if so, he is receiving a payment as such—but I suspect that he is not. That is surprising. Hon. Members who are put on a Select Committee on private legislation undertake a truly horrendous task. It is very time-consuming and difficult work that is usually, frankly, given as a punishment by the Whips Office for some misdemeanour, and I have the greatest sympathy for those who undertake it. But the fact remains that that hard work is shared by all the members of the Committee. It is not like being the Chairman of a departmental Select Committee. Those Chairmen do a tremendous amount of work outside the Committee, meeting individuals, preparing for meetings and guiding the reports that the Committee produces. They do a whole array of further work, but I do not believe that that is the role of the Chairman of a private Bill Committee. The work of those Committees is shared by all their members.
	I do not intend to show any disrespect to the hon. Member for Mansfield, who I know is doing very good job of work, but he is not there all the time, and I believe that up to four other Members have also chaired that Bill Committee. So it seems odd to reward only one member of the Committee, quite substantially under the terms of this provision, for doing that temporary job. Furthermore, it is not clear to me from my reading of the resolution whether this is an annualised payment in line with those of other Select Committee Chairmen, or whether there is a pro rata element related to the timing of the Bill. It would be helpful to know that.

John Bercow: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will take my intervention as confirmation of his theory about punishment. May I tell him that I was asked, although not instructed, to sit on the Committee of the Crossrail Bill? However, I declined the invitation.

Jack Straw: But it is also up to the Committee itself. It is the same arrangement as for a Select Committee. It does not involve a Chairmen's Panel nomination. So the usual channels ensure that, by some osmotic process, a name comes forward. That Member becomes a member of the Committee and—hey presto!—all other members of the Committee, by an entirely democratic free vote, approve that person. That seems to work fine— [ Laughter.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle want some of this, he should just see me and I will do my best to ensure that he receives similar favour.

Jack Straw: One second. Somebody outrageously suggested that places on hybrid and private Bill Committees are reserved for punishments by the Whips. I am sure that that is still true in the Conservative party; it is no longer true in the Labour party and the Government, because we now have a caring, sharing Whips Office that does everything by gentle persuasion. However, it certainly was true, as I remember—  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidenhead says that her Chief Whip is also very nice. He, of course, gets paid, unlike members of the shadow Cabinet.
	As a shadow Cabinet member for 10 years, it always rankled that I was expected to work my socks off and speak on behalf of the party while not being paid a penny whereas our Chief Whip, who was expected simply to dragoon people into the Lobby and not speak at all, was paid a large sum. There we are; it just gets one used to life in government.
	If I might detain the House for a moment on the issue of punishment by the Whips, I remember that such punishment took place in the 1980s in respect of a close friend of mine, with whom I shared an office, the late Allan Roberts. He was a good parliamentarian, but an outrageous roué and bon viveur, and was the Member for Bootle until his sad death in 1990.
	Allan had been offending the Whips in a variety of ways and was told that he had to serve his time by going on a private Bill Committee. As so often, he got into trouble; he failed to turn up to the private Bill Committee and was told that he would be fined about £50 for each failure. He came to me, and I had to try to bail him out—not for the first time, let me say, nor indeed the last.
	With that digression, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will accept that, although this is something of a precedent, without precedents—if we were against them—nothing would ever be done for the first time. This is a new situation, and I hope he accepts that this is a fair way to proceed. I am grateful to those on the Conservative Front Bench for their support.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House, including the additional salaries determined in accordance with the Resolutions of this House (as amended from time to time) of 30th October 2003 relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) and 13th July 2005 relating to Pay for Chairmen of Standing Committees (No. 2)—
	For the year starting with 1st April 2006 the yearly rate shall be increased in two stages—
	(a) with effect from 1st April, by 1 per cent., and
	(b) with effect from 1st November, to the yearly rate determined in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries.

Eric Martlew: I am delighted to speak to the motion. On 2 May 2001 we had the original motion before the House. Of course, if it had not been for the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the debate would never have taken place. After it, the Speaker asked me to form a working group to see whether we could get an association up and running.
	I was flattered by that and I wondered whether the Speaker realised that I had a background in human resources—I used to be personnel manager for a large multinational company. So, I delved into this a little further, but the reality was that I was one of only three Members who were sitting on the Benches when the debate took place. I was the obvious candidate.
	The work has gone well, but when I was appointed to the post, I wondered why we had never had a formal association. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has asked that question today from the Conservative Front Bench. Throughout the world, Parliaments similar to ours all have their associations. I then realised that the reason for us not having an association for former Members is down at the other end of the building. In fact, we have an association, and it is called the House of Lords. It has been there for many centuries, but only elite former Members went to it. If what I hear is to be believed, it will be even more difficult for Members of this House to get to the other House, so I am sure that the need for the association will increase.
	The working group reported to the Speaker and the then Leader of the House, and it was successful. The association of former Members now has, I think,340 members, including two former Prime Ministers and 32 former Cabinet Ministers. They need no advice from us about how to run their business, as many of them have run the country, some of them well and some not so well.
	As the Leader of the House pointed out, there was a need for this association, and the main need was for fellowship. This place is a closed community, and suddenly finding oneself on the outside is difficult when most Members live in their constituencies and are unlikely to meet one of their work colleagues walking down the street. Some successful social gatherings have taken place, and I want to put on record our thanks for the support of Speaker Martin in that regard. The Administration Committee, which was at first reluctant to accept the demands of the association, has also been helpful.
	Progress has been made. When the association was started, a former Member had to have completed15 years' service before being given permission to come into the House without having to go through security and wear a label with a date on it. That has now improved greatly. Former Members found it shaming to have to go through that procedure and felt that their contribution merited better. An office has been provided, which is welcomed by the association. The small amount of financial support provided helps to pay the association's postage costs. It has been fortunate to employ a part-time secretary, Sally Grocott—"employ" is perhaps not the right word, as I am not sure that she gets paid or gets paid regularly. As she knows the House—her husband is Chief Whip in the other place—she has been a tower of strength to the association.
	The driving force behind the association, however, has been Joe Ashton. I have worked closely with him and he tires me out. Given the amount of energy that he puts into his role, he probably retired too early. The association has been fortunate to have him. Nothing is ever good enough for Joe, so we must go further and faster. He now has an all-party, mixed-gender executive that represents various regions of the United Kingdom. The House would be proud to form an executive on such a basis were it ever able to do so. Members are aware of its success, because it produces a newspaper, "Order Order", three times a year, which is now circulated with  The House Magazine.
	The association has asked me to raise one or two issues. First, it has asked me to raise the issue of the pension fund trustees. I served for many years as a pension fund trustee and, believe me, it is not a glamorous committee. It is perhaps a bit like that on the Crossrail Bill, but the chairman does not get paid. The law says that there should be pensioner trustees. At present, we have a pensioner trustee, who was not nominated by the association but is a member of it. The association has asked whether it can be consulted in future about the retired trustee on the pension fund, which is a reasonable request, and whether there could be more than one retired trustee on the pension fund. I hope that that suggestion will be communicated through the usual channels back to the fund trustees.
	Secondly, the association asked me to raise the issue of the Members' Fund, of which, for my pains, I am also a member. I am conscious that the vast majority of Members of Parliament know nothing about the Members' Fund—they just know from their payslip that they make a £2 contribution to it every month. In reality, it is a fund for assisting former Members of Parliament or their spouses and family—the assistance is normally to spouses and family who might have fallen into some kind of financial difficulty. The laws on the fund were passed by the House in about 1935 and need revising. Members of the association understand that. If the laws are revised, however, they would like a retired association member to be a member of the Members' Fund.
	I also want to raise the issue, on which the Leader of the House touched, of how we treat Members who lose their seats. Some work has been done on that, and I thought that I had secured an agreement with the usual channels that when a Member loses a seat, he or she can use part of the winding-up allowance to get expert help on returning to the labour market. A Member of Parliament who has been out of his or her profession for 10 years will find it difficult to get back into the labour market. The multinational company for which I worked would bring in consultants to assist those who had been made redundant with their CVs and advise them on their career prospects and future direction. That does not happen here. My understanding—which was wrong, as it did not happen—was that Members, if they so wished, could use part of the winding-up allowance for those purposes. I hope that that will have been provided for by the time of the next general election.

David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree—this did not apply to me, although I lost my seat, and I was fortunate enough to be in employment within a week—that the process can be pretty undignified when a Member loses a seat? Several former Members, no doubt on both sides of the House, have needed to get permission from the authorities to come here and collect their papers and so on, perhaps a few days after a general election. A more dignified approach is required to deal with those who have lost their seats, not only to help them in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested but to make it easier for them to collect papers and do other things that one would do normally when leaving one's employment.

Eric Martlew: I should make clear that spouses can join the association.

Dennis Skinner: I am sorry that I was missing for a few minutes. I was in touch with—not Joe Ashton, although he has been in touch with me a great deal lately, which is why I have risen to speak, but the cardiologist. Just at the moment, that is a bit more important.
	Joe Ashton was a Whip between 1976 and 1979, when we had no majority. Well, we did have a majority, but then Stonehouse went missing. He was on a Florida beach, then he turned up in Australia. Then he crossed the Floor, and Joe Ashton was given the job of being one of the Whips keeping our majority intact. They were heady days and all the rest of it, but we formed a relationship. Joe's job was to try to get me into the Lobbies. It did not always work, but I told him all those years ago that I would do him a favour some time. I got on the phone to him when he retired. It has not been mentioned yet, but Joe had a very serious illness. We had many long discussions about how he was getting on. At the time I could see that despite the grim fight that he was undertaking, there was no doubt that the proposal that he had helped to put to the House way back in 2001—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that it was on 2 May—was still very much in his mind. I promised him on numerous occasions that I would raise it if necessary, in accordance with what he wanted. What I did not know was that Joe had also been briefing my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, who has presented most of his propositions today.
	Reference has been made to the composition of this place in the old days. Many Members then had formerly worked in factories or the pits. I can speak with some knowledge about pension entitlements in those days. The pension from the pits was only voluntary even in my day, and there was no pension at all when I started working as a miner. Many people who became Members of Parliament received no pension. It is true that they could have money shifted from one place to another, but people who had given20 years' service were receiving about £100 a month—people who had worked in factories, pits and all the rest. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome(Mr. Heath) was right to say that many Members did not leave with a great deal of money. It is true that the composition of this place has changed dramatically. There are no longer 700,000 miners; you would have a job to find more than 5,000. That is why it is important to remember what the position used to be.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle mentioned nominees for the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the Members' fund. That is what Members are striving for, as of right. If the Commission would consider it, I am sure that my old pal Joe Ashton, Bill Michie and all the rest who helped to form the association will be very pleased. Help with the cost of the magazine would also be appreciated, and Joe also told me that he would like to have the names and addresses of all the Members who had left, so that they could keep in contact.
	So those are the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle dealt with them previously and explained precisely what was needed, and I hope that the Commission can deal with the matter. I have done my job. I made a promise to Joe donkeys' years ago that there would come an occasion when he would be glad of my presence. I may not be in the Lobby, but I am speaking up for his association.

Jamie Reed: I am delighted to have secured this debate today on a subject of pivotal importance to my constituency. In fact, although it is of real importance to a number of constituencies throughout the country, nowhere will the effect of the sale of British Nuclear Group be more acutely felt than in Copeland and in West Cumbria generally.
	I want to begin my establishing the unique importance of British Nuclear Group to the Sellafield site, Copeland and West Cumbria. I know that the Minister is well aware of these issues, but they bear repeating. British Nuclear Group is by far the largest company operating on the Sellafield site. It employs more than 7,000 people directly, and the site itself employs over 11,500 people. Employment at Sellafield sustains another 5,000 jobs in the wider local community, so in real terms, the site is responsible for approximately 17,000 jobs. Such employment accounts for the majority of the West Cumbria economy and well over 60 per cent. of the economy of Copeland.
	Take-home wages from the Sellafield site are in excess of £210 million per year. The site provides, as the Minister knows, high-quality, highly skilled, highly valued jobs. Expenditure from the Sellafield sitegoing into the regional supply chain is in excess of£600 million a year. It provides the lifeblood of the local service industry companies, the hospitality and retail industries, and the bespoke, high-value engineering industries to be found not only in Copeland, but in Allerdale, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). Local supply chain procurement by BNG is essential in West Cumbria, an issue to which I shall return.
	In addition to that contribution to the local economy, in the past 15 years BNG has committed£20 million to the West Cumbria Development Fund—a local economic regeneration body—which, in turn, has helped to lever in a further £10 million worth of European Union funding. BNG has also demonstrated a concerted willingness to work in partnership with the local communities within which it operates, and, crucially, with the trade unions. In my view, it is the trade union members on any nuclear site who are the ultimate arbiters of safety. That is certainly the case at Sellafield, and I am grateful and pleased that the relationship between them and BNG is as strong as it clearly is. It is against that background that my interest in BNG must be understood. I must also state for the record that I am a former employee of the company at the Sellafield site—a fact of which I am extremely proud.
	On 30 March, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the Government's endorsement of the proposal of the board of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to sell BNG. This was expected, and given the remit of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority under the terms of the Energy Act 2004, completely understandable. The NDA and the UK as a whole require the development of competition within the nuclear decommissioning industry in the UK, in order to achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer. Although I completely accept the logic of that and the need for competition, I hope that the Minister can explain what, if any, consideration was given to the formation of a public-private partnership for UK decommissioning before the owner-contractor model was chosen.
	Accompanying the Secretary of State's announcement, the NDA made the wise announcement that it would grant BNG a new five-year contract to operate the Sellafield site. That contract will keep the company, or its new owner, at the site until at least 2012. The Secretary of State said that he expects the sale of BNG to be completed by the autumn of 2007. For my constituents, that means that from next autumn, there will be a new, dominant company operating the Sellafield site. It is essential that that new company understand my community and become an active partner within it.
	I have to say at this juncture that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have shown the faintest glimmer of an understanding of what any of this means. Following the Secretary of State's announcement in March, the shadow Secretary of State issued a press release claiming that that announcement meant that the nation's nuclear liabilities were being put into the private sector. I can only assume that he has not read, let alone understood, the 2004 Act. Those liabilities have remained, and will remain, within the public sector under the ownership of the NDA. That embarrassing lack of understanding does not bode well for the shadow Secretary of State's time on the Conservative Front Bench, or, indeed, for the Conservatives' approach to the nuclear industry in general.
	The Leader of the Opposition recently hand-picked one of the country's most vocal and misleading opponents of the nuclear industry to be his energy and environment adviser. That adviser has repeatedly misled the nation about the health and well-being of my constituents, among whom he has spread fear, anxiety and anger. His claims have no scientific or factual basis and constitute little more than malicious scaremongering. So today, I call upon the Leader of the Opposition—sadly, he is not here—to ensure that his high-profile advisers publicly withdraw their comments, or to otherwise sack them.

Jamie Reed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is absolutely correct; indeed, I could not have put it better myself. Speaking as a member of a local community surrounding a nuclear facility, I can say that that is precisely what such communities believe.
	I return to the litany of errors committed by Opposition Front Benchers. Only this week, the new Leader of the Opposition notably failed to back calls for a new programme of nuclear power generation in Britain. I deeply regret his turning his back on the industry, at its time not only of greatest need, but of greatest opportunity. More importantly, at a time when climate change has emerged as perhaps the definitive political challenge of our time, it is a tragedy that Conservative Front Benchers should fail to back the single largest carbon dioxide-free producer of energy—energy that is available not only to Britain, but the world. I implore the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider, and I will happily sit down with him and his shadow Secretary of State—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)—and convince them of the nuclear case. This issue is above and beyond party politics. I hope that all parties in the House will be able and mature enough to devise a national consensus on energy policy, and I urge the Conservatives to join me in calling for new nuclear power generation in the UK.
	Last week, during a trip to the USA, I visited the Hanford nuclear facility in Washington state before meeting representatives of the Hanford area on Capitol Hill. I learned a lot from that visit, and it is appropriate to compare and contrast the British and American approaches to the nuclear industry. It is important to do so because there are significant differences between the two. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am a passionate pro-American, but that cannot and will not influence my views on what I believe to be right for the Sellafield site and my community.
	It is important to understand and be aware of the US nuclear regulatory framework and working practices, because a US-based company is almost certainly going to buy BNG. There may or may not be some involvement from French interests, and a number of consortiums might attempt a purchase. Should a consortium bid for, and succeed in buying, BNG, I could not support the break-up or carve-up of the Sellafield site. That has been done before—notably by BNFL during the 1990s—and it resulted in a deterioration in working practices and managerial accountability structures. Such an approach also compromised safety, so I would need to be convinced that it is now workable. At this stage, I have seen nothing to convince me that it is, and I firmly believe that the Sellafield site is best served by one operator.
	In the event of the successful purchase of BNG by a US-based company, I would expect that company immediately and wholeheartedly to embrace the British nuclear industry's working and regulatory practices, and to adopt the British corporate social responsibility culture. That means the adoption of a local supply chain purchasing policy, a close and productive relationship with the trade unions, the establishment and implementation of significant socio-economic development plans for the areas in which it operates, and an effective and satisfactory approach to working terms and conditions—including already amassed pension entitlements—that is acceptable to the existing work force. Fundamentally, it means doing things our way. Above all, it means working safely. The safety of the Sellafield work force and the safety of my community is non-negotiable, whatever other inducements might be proposed.
	The British nuclear work force is the best nuclear work force in the world. I can say that with confidence as I have up close and personal experience of it. Standards of safety in the UK industry are better than elsewhere in the world, technological development and applied scientific and research application is amongst the best in the world, and productivity standards are now approaching the best there are as well. It is those attributes that make our nuclear workers, our nuclear scientists, our nuclear engineers and our nuclear working practices among the most sought after in the world.
	Speak to any US multinational with a developing interest in buying BNG—and I have spoken to some—and they will explain that an association with the British nuclear industry is the key to opening up the vast nuclear clean-up and decommissioning markets in Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe. BNG's recent record illustrates that, as the company has successfully decommissioned and cleaned up more than 50 redundant nuclear facilities world wide. The company is also on a sound financial footing, with signs of real further improvements in financial performance this year and in years to come.
	The company's profitability has not been achieved at the expense of either productivity or safety, a feat attributable not only to management, but the knowledge and experience of the shop floor. Last year, Sellafield's vitrification plant delivered a record-breaking 503 canisters against a predicted target of 450. By contrast, the US vitrification programme is billions of dollars over budget and in complete disarray. The Sellafield MOX plant recently delivered a second batch of four MOX fuel assemblies to NOK—Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG—in time for its summer reactor reload, and last week signed a new £200 million-plus contract with another continental utility. Those are causes for celebration.
	In January 2006, the company completed the clean-up of historic liquid waste from one of the oldest plants at Sellafield, preventing more than 44 yearsof liquid emissions and saving the taxpayer up to£300 million in potential new building costs. Only last week I was discussing problematic clean-up issues with the US Department of Energy. It highlighted a particular problem in the US with technetium. That is an issue solved by BNG some time ago—I am delighted to say that I was involved in the project—which piqued a great deal of interest among the US Department of Energy officials. If anyone from BNG is listening to this debate or reads the report, I advise them to get down to the patent office as soon as possible, because a significant sum could be made from their unique technological skills and expertise. The market applications are huge.
	With regard to safety—we should bear in mind the fact that Sellafield is the largest construction site in Britain and one of the largest in Europe—the current days-away case record rate is 0.23 against a target of 0.28, which is lower than any similar rate among any US contractors currently operating in that country. BNG Project Services has a days-away case record rate of zero and has worked almost 3 million man hours without a single lost-time accident. I could go on, but the point is made. The British nuclear industry places safety above everything else and it is a matter of fact that foreign contractors will have to emulate that safety culture if they want to operate in Britain. We lead the world in that regard and others have a great deal to learn from us.
	I cannot guess at the value of BNG in financial terms. However, when assessing the revenue of any potential sale, I ask that the Government consider more than the financial value of the sale. Value is measured in more than money and the highest bidder for BNG may not necessarily be the best bidder for my community. It is imperative that the highest financial bid should not bring with it the highest actual cost to my constituents or any part of the UK in the areas of safety, environmental performance and socio-economic investment and development. Public acceptability of a particular contractor must be considered in the process of any sale, and weight must be given to that in devising the criteria against which potential BNG purchasers are judged.
	It must be said, one year after the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, that its presence in my constituency and West Cumbria generally has been enthusiastically received. It has proven already to be a genuinely involved, listening community partner, which has already demonstrated that it has the interests of the West Cumbria community uppermost in its thoughts and actions.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the budgeting process of the NDA. I was concerned to discover in the US that the budget for nuclear clean-up is done on a year-by-year basis, so the budgets are set annually. They are therefore subject to the vagaries of the political process—cut in some years and expanded in others. In the UK, my hon. Friend and the Department have provided a comprehensive, stable framework for nuclear decommissioning and clean-up to take place, and I am grateful for that.
	I understand that the NDA will devise the BNG sale criteria, no doubt in conjunction with BNG, BNFL and the DTI. What I now require is significant involvement from the West Cumbrian community in determining what those criteria should be. The socio-economic obligations for both the NDA and its contractors are laid out in the Energy Act 2004, and I now hope to explore with the aforementioned groups the United States National Defence Authorisation Act 1993, especially section 3161, which helps to define the socio-economic obligations of US contractors operating in nuclear decommissioning environments. My hon. Friend will know of the importance of the West Cumbria Strategic Forum and I believe that it would be appropriate if that body were involved in establishing the sale criteria.
	Finally, the future of British Nuclear Group is of fundamental importance to West Cumbria. It is vital that its sale be conducted properly, transparently and with the interests of those communities where BNG currently operates upheld at the centre of this process. The successful bidder must be the one who understands the ambitions and aspirations of its host communities and the working practices of the UK nuclear industry. I thank my hon. Friend for his patience and time, and look forward to his response.

David Drew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, despite being late, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) for missing the first few minutes of his speech. I was taken by surprise, but I should have learned that about this place.
	I wish to make three quick points. I represent a constituency at the other scale of things from my hon. Friend, in as much as the Berkeley site has been undergoing a fairly organised run-down for some months. The decision to dispense with the nuclear laboratories came as a bit of a shock, but it is pleasing to see that the work will go on. I welcomed the comments by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. In defending the nuclear industry, I have always sought to make the point that it is nothing if it is not its work force. That is the basic integrity of the industry. One can have sites and systems, but without the people, one has no industry. It is vital that we keep those people in place.
	So my first point is that it is vital that we keep the presence of the industry in many different parts of the country. That is why I have always fought for Berkeley to be considered, if not as the site of a new nuclear power station—because of problems with the River Severn—but to retain the research and development facilities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that.
	Secondly, we have the issue of the ownership of the sites by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Much as I can see the benefits of separating the providers of services from the ownership of the sites, there are some concerns about possible conflicts of interest. Given that Berkeley is the first decommissioned nuclear power station in this country, a proposal is imminent for the further decommissioning of the old power site, which would be a first in the world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept an invitation when the proposal is introduced to come and see how it would take the nuclear industry forward, in terms of solving the waste problem and the issue of the new generation.
	My third point is about the relationship of the BNG, whatever form it takes, and other parts of the nuclear industry. It is vital that we do not see contractualisation as the answer to everything. I am concerned that we have no overall picture of what the nuclear industry could look like in five years' time. British Energy, BNFL, AMEC and the various other parts of the industry may have had their weaknesses, and the introduction of foreign investors may or may not be a good thing, but there need to be clarity about the industry's structure. Without that, we will not be able to build the new generation of nuclear power stations, even if that is what we decide to do.
	Finally, I totally concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that BNG is an important company that has been much abused in the past. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some food for thought. and hope for the future.

Malcolm Wicks: After the previous debate on MPs' pay, it is good to turn to the calmer and less controversial waters of nuclear energy.
	I welcome the opportunity to comment on the future of the British Nuclear Group. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) is a great commentator on nuclear policy, and his expertise and experience are always worth listening to. In addition, he has a great reputation in his community, as I witnessed when I visited Sellafield some months ago.
	The former Secretary of State, who is now Secretary of State for Education and Skills, announced our intentions in a written statement to the House on30 March. That statement made it clear that we had approved the BNFL board's recommendation that it should sell BNG through a competitive sale process commencing in April 2007 or earlier. However, there has been much media speculation about how the competitive sale will be conducted. Some of that speculation has been accurate and some of it less so, and my aim today is to provide some clarity on the matter.
	I recognise that this debate takes place against a backdrop of some interest in the future of nuclear energy. I shall not say too much about that wider issue, save that I am conducting an energy review on behalf of my Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and that it will report on these critical questions by the summer.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland rightly made some very positive comments about BNG and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's achievements since it commenced operations just over a year ago. I should like to echo those sentiments. BNFL did an admirable job in restructuring itself and preparing the ground for the NDA. The management and staff at BNG have coped very well with the transition. I am tremendously encouraged that the NDA's stewardship of the UK's nuclear clean-up has already yielded significant efficiency savings at BNG's sites. It is a very good start, but of course we are looking for very much more.
	That is why we believe that a competitive sale is the right route. After careful deliberation, the BNFL board determined a sale to be in the company's best commercial interest and to represent BNG's best chance of operating successfully in the commercial market created by the Energy Act 2004, thereby providing long-term stability for staff. Most important of all, though, the company also convinced us that it would be good for the taxpayer because it is good for the nuclear decommissioning and clean-up programme.
	I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland the reason why the option of a public-private partnership was not pursued, but essentially it was because BNG would not have the required critical mass.
	The decision for Government was not straightforward, and was taken only after extensive consultation with key stakeholders. We were especially keen that the sale should not impact negatively on the NDA's mission, and we have moved forward carefully to ensure that we have fully considered the issues. However, I am absolutely confident that we now have the right result, and one that will contribute to improved clean-up performance for the NDA by introducing external expertise more quickly.
	The NDA's competition timetable reflects its broader strategy to prioritise the tackling of the highest hazards. Rather than run its own separate competition for Sellafield, the NDA was able to accommodate the sale by letting a new five-year contract for that site. That will commence next year, at the point when the new owner acquires BNG. The NDA and BNFL will thus work closely throughout the competitive sale process. The aim will be to ensure that the successful bidder is the best available to improve performance substantially, particularly at Sellafield. Therefore, the selection criteria will be focused mainly on issues such as safety, reducing high hazards, driving down costs through better planning and more innovation, accelerating clean-up and improved managed capability.
	This debate is not the occasion to discuss the problems involved in nuclear decommissioning, but it is worth noting that they represent some of the really big challenges facing this country in the coming half century. Over the summer, the expert group CORUM will present a report with proposals on what might be called the final resting place for nuclear waste. Those are critical issues.